Page images

28–32. Outside the Praetorium; the Jews claim the execution of the Sanhedrin's sentence of death, and Pilate refuses it.

mpwt. This is rendered morning' Matt. xvi. 3; Mark i. 35, xi. 20, xiii. 35, xv. 1; the last passage being partly parallel to this. In Mark xiii. 35 the word stands for the fourth watch (see on Mark vi. 48), which lasted from 3.0 to 6.0 A.M. A Roman court might be held directly after sunrise; and as Pilate had probably been informed that an important case was to be brought before him, delay in which might cause serious disturbance, there is nothing improbable in his being ready to open his court between 4.0 and 5.0 A.M.

The hierarchy were in a difficulty. Jesus could not safely be arrested by daylight, and the Sanhedrin could not legally pronounce sentence of death by night: hence they had had to wait till dawn to condemn Him. Now another regulation hampers them: a day must intervene between sentence and execution. This they shuffled out of by going at once to Pilate. Of course if he undertook the execution, he must fix the time; and their representations would secure his ordering immediate execution. Thus they shifted the breach of the law from themselves to him.

As in the life of our Lord as a whole, so also in this last week and last day of it, the exact sequence and time of the events cannot be ascertained with certainty. Chronology is not what the Evangelists aim at giving us. For a tentative arrangement of the chief events of the Passion see Appendix C.

αυτοί. The “most characteristic trait of a religious and godless nation ever put on record” (Maurice). They themselves (in contrast to their Victim, whom they sent in under a Roman guard) entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled by entering a house possibly polluted by heathen abominations and certainly not cleansed from leaven (Ex. xii. 15). But Jewish zeal had taught the Romans that idols could not be tolerated in the Holy City.

ένα φάγωσιν το π. It is evident that S. John does not regard the Last Supper as a Paschal mcal. Comp. xiii. 1, 29.

It is equally evident that the synoptic narratives convey the impression that the Last Supper was the ordinary Jewish Passover (Matt. xxvi, 17, 18, 19; Mark xiv. 14, 16; Luke xxii. 7, 8, 11, 13, 15). Whatever be the right solution, the independence of the author of the Fourth (tospel is manifest. Would anyone counterfeiting an Apostle venture thus to contradict what seemed to have such strong Apostolic authority? Would he not expect that a glaring discrepancy on so important a point would prove fatal to his pretensions ? Assume that S. John is simply recording his own vivid recollections, whether or no we suppose him to be correcting the impression produced by the Synoptists, and this difficulty at any rate is avoided. S. John's narrative is too precise and consistent to be explained away. On the difficulty as regards the Synoptists see Appendix A; see also Excursus V at the end of Dr Farrar's S. Luke.

29. Eņa dev oứv ó II. W. Because they would not enter, therefore Pilate went out to them. The emphatic position of εξήλθεν and the addition of t£w seem to call attention to this Roman concession to Jewish religiousness. The Evangelist assumes that his readers know who Pilate is, just as he assumes that they know the Twelve, Martha and Mary, and Mary Magdalene (vi. 67, xi, 1, xix. 25).

Tlva katnyoplav. No doubt Pilate knew, but in accordance with strict procedure he demands a formal indictment.

KAKÒV Tow. An evil-doer: distinguish from kakoûpyos (Luke xxiii. 32). The Jews are taken aback at Pilate's evident intention of trying the case himself. They had expected him merely to carry out their sentence, and had not come provided with any definite accusation. Blasphemy, for which they had condemned Him (Matt. xxvi. 65, 66), might be no crime with Pilate (comp. Acts xviii. 16). Hence the vagueness of their first charge. Later on (xix. 7) they throw in the charge of blasphemy; but they rely mainly on three distinct charges, which being political, Pilate must hear; (1) seditious agitation, (2) forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, (3) assuming the title, 'King of the Jews' (Luke xxiii. 3).

31. ETTEV Oův atrois ó II. Because of their vague accusation. If they will not make a specific charge, he will not deal with the case. Pilate, impressed probably by his wife's dream (Matt. xxvii. 19) tries in various ways to avoid sentencing Jesus to death. (1) He would have the Jews deal with the case themselves; (2) he sends Jesus to Herod; (3) he proposes to release Him in honour of the Feast; (4) he will scourge Him and let Him go. Roman governors were not commonly so scrupulous, and Pilate was not above the average : a vague superstitious dread was perhaps his strongest motive. Thrice in the course of these attempts does he pronounce Jesus innocent (v. 39, xix. 4, 6). Note the emphatic and somewhat contemptuous iueîs and incôv; Take Ilim yourselves and according to your law judge Him. Pilate disdains to interfere in Jewish religious disputes.

oủk tbeoTLV. These words are to be taken quite literally, and with. out any addition, such as 'at the Passover' or 'by crucifixion,' or 'for high treason. The question whether the Sanhedrin had or had not the right to inflict capital punishment at this time is a vexed one. On the one hand we have (1) this verse; (2) the statement of the Talmud that 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews lost this power; (3) the evidence of Josephus (Ant. xx. ix. 1; comp. XVIII. i. 1; xvi. ii. 4, and vi.) that the high-priest could not summon a judicial court of the Sanhedrin without the Procurator's leave; (4) the analogy of Roman law. To this it is replied (Döllinger, First Age of the Church, Appendix 11.); (1) that the Jews quibbled in order to cause Jesus to be crucified at the Feast instead of stoned after all the people had dispersed; and Pilate would not have insulted the Jews from the tribunal by telling them to put Jesus to death, if they had no power to do so ; (2) that the Talmud is in error, for the Roman dominion began 60 years before the destruction of Jerusalem; (3) that Josephus (xx. ix. 1) shews that the Jews had this power: Ananus is accused to Albinus not for putting people to death, but for holding a court without leave: had the former been criminal it would have been mentioned ; (4) that the analogy of Roman law proves nothing, for cities and countries subject to Rome often retained their autonomy: and there are the cases of S. Stephen, those for whose death S. Paul voted (Acts xxvi. 10), and the Apostles, whom the Sanhedrin wished to put to death (Acts v. 33); and Gamaliel in dissuading the council never hints that to inflict death will bring trouble upon themselves. To this it may be replied again; that Pilate would have exposed a quibble had there been one, and his dignity as judge was evidently not above shewing ironical contempt for the plaintiffs; (2) that the Talmud may be wrong about the date and right about the fact; possibly it is right about both; (3) to mention the holding of a court by Ananus was enough to secure the interference of Albinus, and more may have been said than Josephus reports; (4) autonomy in the case of subject states was the exception; therefore the burden of proof rests with those who assert it of the Jews. S. Stephen's death and the other cases (comp. John v. 18, vii. 1, 25, viii. 3, 59; Acts xxi. 31) only prove that the Jews sometimes ventured on acts of judicial rigour and violence of which the Romans took little notice. Besides we do not know that in all these cases the Sanhedrin proposed to do more than to sentence to death, trusting to the Romans to execute the sentence, as here. Pilate's whole action, and his express statement xix. 10, seem to imply that he alone has the power to inflict death.

Trolo Davárø. By what manner of death (xii. 33, xxi. 19; comp. x. 32; Matt. xxi. 23, xxii. 36 ; Luke vi. 32, xxiv. 19). Had the Sanhedrin executed Him as a blasphemer or a false prophet, He would have been stoned. The Jews had other forms of capital punishment (see on (viii. 5]), but not crucifixion ; and by them He could not have been lifted up (viii. 28) like the Brazen Serpent (iii. 14).

33–37. Inside the Praetorium; Jesus is privately examined by Pilate, and makes tņu kalnu òuoloylav (1 Tim. vi. 13).

33. Because of the importunity of the Jews (oov) Pilate is obliged to investigate further; and being only Procurator, although cum potestate, has no Quaestor, but conducts the examination himself. Probably the Roman guards had already brought Jesus inside the Praetorium : Pilate now calls Him before the judgment-seat. What follows implies that He had not heard the previous conversation with the Jews.

où el ó ß. . 'I. In all four Gospels these are Pilate's first words to Jesus, and S. Luke (xxiii. 2) gives the Jewish accusation which suggested them; «saying that He Himself is Christ a king. In all four Eú is emphatic. The appearance of Jesus is in such contrast to royalty that Pilate speaks with surprise (comp. iv. 12, viii. 53) : his meaning is either ‘Dost Thou claim to be King?' or, 'Art Thou the socalled King?' The civil title, “the King of the Jews,' first appears in the mouth of the wise men (Matt. ii. 1), next in the mouth of Pilate: contrast the theocratic title, “the K. of Israel' (i. 50).

[ocr errors]

34. Note the solemn brevity of the introductions to vv. 34, 35, 36. Jesus demands that the responsibility of making this charge against Him be laid on the right persons. Moreover the meaning of the charge, and therefore the truth of it, would depend on the person making it. In Pilate's sense He was not King; in another sense He was. Note that He asks for information; see on xi. 17, 34.

35. 'Is it likely that I, a Roman governor, have any interest in Jewish questions? Am I likely to call Thee King? It was Thine own nation (double article; see next note) that delivered Thee to me. What made them do it?'

36. B. of fun. This emphatic form, “the kingdom that is Mine' (see on viii. 31) prevails throughout the verse. 'Yunpétal must be rendered servants,' not 'officers,' although there is doubtless an allusion to the officials of the hierarchy (vv. 3, 12, 18, 22, vii. 32, 45, 46; Matt. v. 25). In Luke i. 2 and 1 Cor. iv. 1, the only places in Gospels and Epistles in which the word is used of Christians, it is rendered ministers,' both in A.V. and R. V. 'Officers' would here suggest mili. tary officers. “The kingdom that is really Mine does not derive its origin (ék) from this world (iv. 22, viii. 23, xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16, x. 16): if from this world sprang My kingdom, then would the servants that are really Mine be striving' (Luke xiii. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 25). For the construction see on v. 46, and for toîs 'Iovdalous see on xiii. 33.

vûv Sé. The meaning of vũv is clear from the context; "as it is, as the case really stands:' comp. viii. 40, ix, 41, xv. 22, 24. It does not mean ‘My kingdom is not of this world now, but shall be so hereafter;' as if Christ were promising a millennium.

37. oủkoûv. Here only in N.T. Combined with the position of cú it gives a tone of scorn to the question, which is half an exclamation: 'So then, Thou art a King!'. We might write oőkovv and render, * Art Thou not then a King?' or, “Thou art not then a King.' But oủkoûv is simpler and is preferred by most editors. See Winer, p. 643.

où déyels őrl. The rendering, Thou sayest (well), because, is much less natural than Thou sayest that. Christ leaves the royal title which Pilate misunderstands and explains the nature of His kingdom—the realm of truth.

els Toûto. To this end have I been born and to this end am I come into the world. To be a King, He became incarnate; to be & King, He entered the world: and this in order to witness to the truth. The second eis toûto does not, any more than the first, refer exclusively to what follows; both refer partly to what precedes, partly (1 John iii. 8) to what follows. The perfects express a past act continuing in the present; Christ has come and remains in the world. 'Eyú is very emphatic; in this respect Christ stands alone among men. "Epxcodai eis T. Kóguov is frequent in S. John (i. 9, ix. 39, xi. 27, xvi. 28). Applied to Christ it includes the notions of His mission and of His pre-existence: but Pilate would not see this.

{va uapt. Tŷ al. This is the Divine purpose of His royal power: not merely witness the truth,' i.e. give a testimony that is true, but bear witness to the objective reality of the Truth: again, not merely "bear witness of,' i.e. respecting the Truth (i. 7, 15, ii. 25, v. 31—39, viii. 13—18, &c.), but bear witness to,' i.e. in support and defence of the Truth (v. 33). Both these expressions, 'witness' and “truth,' have been seen to be very frequent in S. John (see especially chaps. i. iii. v. viii. passim). We have them combined here, as in v. 33. This is the object of Christ's sovereignty,—to bear witness to the Truth. It is characteristic of the Gospel that it claims to be the Truth. “This title of the Gospel is not found in the Synoptists, Acts, or Apocalypse; but it occurs in the Catholic Epistles (James i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 2) and in S. Paul (2 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Cor. xiii. 8; Eph. i. 13, &c.). It is specially characteristic of the Gospel and Epistles of S. John.” Westcott, Introduction to S. John, p. xliv.

και ως εκ τ. αλ. That has his root in the Truth, so as to draw the power of his life from it: comp. v. 36, iii, 31, viii. 47, and especially 1 John ii. 21, jii. 19. “It is of great interest to compare this confession before Pilate with the corresponding confession before the high priest (Matt. xxvi. 64). The one addressed to the Jews is in the language of prophecy, the other addressed to a Roman appeals to the universal testimony of conscience. The one speaks of a future mani. festation of glory, the other of a present manifestation of truth......... It is obvious how completely they answer severally to the circumstances of the two occasions." Westcott, in loco.

38. Tí totiv ålndeca; Pilate does not ask about the Truth,' but truth in any particular case. His question does not indicate any serious wish to know what truth really is, nor yet the despairing scepticism of a baffled thinker; nor, on the other hand, is it uttered in a light spirit of jesting' (as Bacon thought). Rather it is the half-pitying, half-impatient, question of a practical man of the world, whose experience of life has convinced him that truth is a dream of enthusiasts, and that a kingdom in which truth is to be supreme is as visionary as that of the Stoics. He has heard enough to convince him that the accused is no dangerous incendiary, and he abruptly closes the investigation with a question, which to his mind cuts at the root of the Prisoner's aspirations. “It was a good question; but Pilate's haste lost him the answer": he asked it and went out. Quid est Veritas ? Vir est qui adest (Anagram attributed to Charles I.). Here probably we must insert the sending to Herod Antipas, who had come from Tiberias, as Pilate from Caesarea, on account of the Feast, the one to win popularity, the other to keep order (Luke xxiii. 6—12).

38–40. Outside the Praetorium; Pilate pronounces Him innocent and offers to release Him for the Feast: the Jews prefer Barabbas.

38. T. 'Ioudalovs. Apparently this means the mob and not the hierarchy. Pilate hoped that only a minority were moving against Jesus; by an appeal to the majority he might be able to acquit Him

« PreviousContinue »